Teaching Intelligent Design as Religion or Science?

William A. DembskiPostdoctoral Research FellowReprinted from The Princeton Theological Review, April
1996

Imagine yourself the head of Christian education for a large
local church. Suppose that among its many ministries the church
operates a high school. Let us say the high school has been existence
for a number of years, and has until now encountered no difficulties
with state certification boards. Unfortunately, this happy state
of affairs is about to change. Recently the state certification
boards have had an influx of new policy makers who are largely
unsympathetic to Christian education. These policy makers want
to see any distinctives between Christian and public school education
curbed as much as possible.

Thus in reviewing your church's high school curriculum, the new
policy makers have been particularly distressed by the way evolution
and creation are handled in the biology classes offered by your
high school. The policy makers would have no problem if you relegated
creation to religion classes, and limited yourself to evolution
in the biology classes. They would not even have a problem if
in addition to treating evolution in the biology classes you also
treated it in religion classes. As far as the new policy makers
are concerned, you could criticize evolution to your heart's content
within a religion class.

The problem, however, is that you are mixing creation and evolution
in your biology classes. Granted, the mention of creation within
the biology curriculum would be excusable if creation were presented
as an outdated religious dogma with no scientific basis. Thus
for purely historical reasons it would be acceptable to describe
what people used to think about biological origins-how people
used to invoke supernatural interventions and a host of other
now disreputable notions. In this way you would not be challenging
evolutionary theory by suggesting that a case of genuine intellectual
merit exists against it.

But this is precisely what your high school is doing, namely,
subverting the teaching of evolution. To be sure, you are fulfilling
your obligation to the state by teaching evolutionary theory as
it is presented in accepted high-school and beginning-college
biology texts. But having presented what you are required to teach,
you are also critiquing the theory you have just presented. What's
more-to add insult to injury-you are offering a positive alternative
to evolutionary theory, an approach increasingly referred to as
intelligent design. You are even using a supplemental biology
text called Of Pandas and People to teach intelligent design.
The teaching of intelligent design particularly infuriates the
new policy makers. As far as they are concerned, intelligent design
is just a sexy new name for the tired old creationism of the 1980's.
This brand of creationism was roundly defeated in the courts,
is not permitted to be taught in the science curricula of public
high schools, and certainly does not deserve to be resurrected.
Intelligent design is not science, and should not be taught as
science. So the story goes.

Even if one leaves aside positive alternatives to evolutionary
theory (like intelligent design), and focuses exclusively on negative
critiques whose only aim is to punch holes in evolutionary theory-even
such negative critiques are unacceptable to the new policy makers.
From their perspective critiquing evolution is just as much a
form of indoctrination as presenting a positive alternative. We
do not tolerate history teachers who critique the holocaust by
suggesting it never happened. We do not tolerate physics teachers
who deny the view that the earth is spherical or doubt whether
its motion is around the sun. We do not tolerate chemistry teachers
who think the periodic table of the elements is irrelevant to
chemistry. So too, we should not tolerate biology teachers who
deny the truth of evolutionary theory.

As far as the new policy makers are concerned, intellectual history
has progressed far enough for everyone to realize that creation
belongs to the realm of religion and evolution to the realm of
science, and that the twain do not meet. Religion and science
are distinct windows into reality and look upon completely different
aspects of reality. As the National Academy of Science has so
aptly put it, "Religion and science are separate and mutually
exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same
context leads to a misunderstanding of both scientific theory
and religious belief." Although science and religion complement
each other, they do not intersect so as to allow insights from
one realm to be meaningfully imported into the other.

To recap, you are head of Christian education at a large local
church. The high school operated by your church is teaching biology
classes that present an alternative to evolutionary theory known
as intelligent design. The new policy makers in charge of certifying
your high school find this unacceptable and are threatening to
pull your certification unless you toe the line and teach evolution
exactly as it is presented in approved biology texts-without critique,
without an intelligent design alternative. As head of Christian
education for this large local church, what are you going to do?
How are you going to advise the relevant judicatory of your church
in deciding what to do about the teaching of creation and evolution
within its high school biology curriculum?

The path of least resistance is obviously to capitulate to the
new policy makers and simply remove anything contrary to evolutionary
theory to a safe place in the curriculum where the policy makers
will not cause trouble. As far as the policy makers are concerned,
any place outside the science curriculum will do. And since yours
is a Christian high school, the most obvious place would be to
place the critique of evolutionary theory in a philosophy or religion
course, something like "Contemporary Issues Facing the Church."

Should you capitulate? Why shouldn't you capitulate? After all,
what is the harm in capitulating? You will still be getting the
same material across to your students. Isn't it the case that
we should choose our battles wisely, and not expend a great deal
of effort fighting for things that in the end do not matter very
much. To spite the new policy makers you could even require that
all students take an entire course (say within the religion department)
devoted exclusively to critiquing evolution and promoting intelligent
design. Whereas in the past students had only a handful of lectures
critiquing evolutionary theory and promoting intelligent design,
now they would be required to take an entire course on the subject.
Wouldn't this be a way of turning defeat into victory, all the
while sidestepping the nasty new policy maker's demands.

Unfortunately, No. The problem is that this move fails to recognize
the immense cultural prestige which our society accords to science,
but denies to religion. This disparity ought to be a fundamental
concern for Christian educators. To relegate the critique of evolution
to religion or philosophy or anything other than science is to
perpetuate this disparity and, in effect, deny the very purpose
for Christian education in the first place. If there is any point
to Christian education, it is to present the various academic
disciplines within an adequate conceptual framework for making
sense of the world. What's more, as Abraham Kuyper so forcefully
argued in the last century, the only adequate framework for the
Christian to make sense of the world is one in which Christ reigns
supreme in every "department of life." The framework
that currently guides public education, by making science inviolable
and religion subordinate to science, thus provides an inadequate
conceptual framework for making sense of the world, and must needs
be unacceptable to any Christian educator with a coherent philosophy
of Christian education.

The over-inflated role of science within our society must not
be left unchallenged, and certainly not by Christian educators.
Within our society, science is advertised as the only universally
valid form of knowledge. This is not to say that scientific knowledge
is deemed true or infallible. But within our society, whatever
is purportedly the best scientific account of a given phenomenon
demands our immediate and unconditional assent. This is regarded
as a matter of intellectual honesty. Thus to consciously resist
what is currently the best scientific theory in a given area is,
in the words of Richard Dawkins, to be either stupid, wicked,
or insane. Thankfully, Richard Dawkins is more explicit than most
of his colleagues in making this point, and therefore does Christian
educators the service of not papering over the contempt with which
the scientific community regards anyone who questions scientific
orthodoxy.

It bears repeating: the only universally valid form of knowledge
within our society is science. Within late 20th century western
society neither religion, nor philosophy, nor literature, nor
music, nor art makes any such cognitive claims. Religion in particular
is seen as making no universal claims that are obligatory across
the board. The contrast with science is here glaring. Science
has given us technology-computers that work as much here as they
do in the third world. Science has cured our diseases. Whether
we are black, red, yellow, or white, the same antibiotics cure
the same infections.

It now becomes clear why relegating a critique of evolutionary
theory, and intelligent design in particular, to any realm other
than science (e.g., religion) represents so significant a
concession. In making this concession a Christian educator engages
not in a comfortable truce but in a quiet surrender. If evolutionary
theory fails some religious criterion, business will continue
as usual. As long as evolutionary theory is the best science of
its day, it will continue to demand the society's immediate and
unconditional assent. But if evolutionary theory fails as a matter
of science, then its day of reckoning will have arrived.

It is precisely at this point, however, that things become sticky.
To be sure, some critiques of evolutionary theory are nothing
more than religious. Thus to reject evolutionary theory simply
because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis
1 cannot constitute a scientific critique of evolutionary theory,
and ought not to be taught within a science curriculum. On the
other hand, if one has genuine scientific reasons for rejecting
evolutionary theory, then it is inappropriate to require that
these reasons be presented outside a science curriculum. Where
things become sticky is whether there can even be such a thing
as counter-evidence to evolutionary theory that is properly speaking
scientific.

The only legitimate reason for excluding a critique of evolutionary
theory from a science curriculum is that the critique is non-scientific.
But what makes a critique of evolutionary theory scientific as
opposed to non-scientific? Let us first be clear what we mean
by the term "evolutionary theory." By this term I mean
any account of the origin and development of life which appeals
only to non-purposive, undirected natural processes. The most
popular such account is what is known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis,
of which Richard Dawkins is the most outspoken contemporary proponent.
Competitors to the neo-Darwinian synthesis include Stephen Jay
Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria and Stuart Kauffman's
self-organizational theory. But observe that all these accounts
are instances of evolutionary theory-however much these accounts
may differ on the surface, they are each committed exclusively
to naturalistic causes as the only legitimate mode of explanation
within science.

By now it has become clear why critiques of evolutionary theory
that invoke intelligent design are proscribed from science curricula.
Evolutionary theory views natural causes as fully capable of explaining
the origin and development of life. Intelligent design says No,
natural causes are incapable of fully explaining life; what is
needed additionally are intelligent causes. But science no longer
recognizes intelligent causes as possessing an integral status
independent of natural causes. If anything, intelligent causes
are nowadays viewed as a byproduct of natural causes in the sense
that natural causes gave rise to us, who happen to be intelligent
beings and act as intelligent causes. In the end, however, intelligent
causes like ourselves are reducible to natural causes, so that
intelligent causes become eliminable from science. Intelligent
design is therefore not properly speaking scientific, since a
more exact analysis will eliminate intelligent causes in favor
of natural causes.

This rejection of intelligent causes from science is problematic
for it ignores a fundamental question: Are there things intelligent
causes governed by minds can do which natural causes governed
purely by natural laws cannot do? Before we start eliminating
intelligent causes in favor of natural causes, let us recognize
that there are good reasons for thinking intelligent causes can
do things which natural causes cannot. Although the reduction
of intelligent causes to natural causes has a long history, going
back at least to the Greek atomists like Democritus, the view
that intelligent causes can do things which natural causes cannot
also has a long and illustrious history. For instance, in the Phaedo (98d-99a) Plato has his hero Socrates distinguish
clearly between the intelligent causes that are inducing him to
stay in an Athenian jail and await execution, and the natural
causes which govern the joints and sinews of his body wherewith
he could either stay in prison or escape to save his life. According
to Plato, natural causes and intelligent causes are fully compatible
and operate in tandem, but are not ultimately reducible the one
to the other.

With the rise of modern science, however, intelligent causes fell
into disrepute. Aristotelian science, by requiring that everything
have a final cause, had proven itself scientifically sterile.
This distrust of intelligent causes within science has if anything
intensified in our own day, so that we find evangelical scholars
who work in the science-theology debate accepting that science
has to be "methodologically atheistic." To be sure,
these scholars believe in God, and therefore are not "metaphysically
atheistic." But they accept that science has to be framed
strictly in terms of natural causes governed by natural laws-intelligent
causes are therefore strictly verboten. Does life exhibit
nothing more than the outcome of fully naturalistic purposeless
material processes, or does life exhibit the purposeful activity
of an intelligent agent? Methodological atheism denies that life
can exhibit intelligent causation in a scientifically meaningful
way. As a matter of faith, we can attribute the origin and development
of life to an intelligent cause. But as a matter of science, we
are left with no more than natural causes, from which it is impossible
to form any definite conclusions about an intelligent cause, much
less a Christian God.

It is crucial here that we distinguish between intelligent causes
as a faith commitment and intelligent causes as a scientific inference.
As Christians we all know that God created the world by wisdom
(cf. Psalm 136:5). For the Christian there is no question that
an intelligent cause underlies the world. The question is rather
an epistemological one-how do we know that an intelligent cause
underlies the world? It is here that intelligent design wants
to challenge the way science is currently practiced, arguing that
intelligent causes belong within science, that intelligent causes
can do things which natural causes cannot do, and that we can
know the difference. It is one thing to hold as a faith commitment
that an intelligence underlies the world, but then be unable to
read the book of nature in a way that makes this intelligence
evident. It is another thing to look at the world and find features
in it that can be reliably correlated with intelligent agency.
In the latter instance, attributing the world to an intelligent
cause is no longer simply a faith commitment, but actually constitutes
a scientific inference.

In describing the controversy over intelligent design in a recent
article for the New York Times, Peter Steinfels misses
this point. According to Steinfels, "The issue is not whether
creation took days or eons. The issue is purpose: Is there an
intelligible and caring purpose at work in the universe or is
the cosmos, human life included, ultimately the manifestation
of blind chance?" Steinfels is correct as far as he goes,
but he errs by leaving the question of intelligent causation at
the level of religious belief. The important question is whether
there are good scientific reasons for thinking that an intelligent
cause is at work in universe. Anyone who wants to engage the secular
culture with a public theology (and Christian educators are key
in this regard) must come to terms with this question. Religious
believers have on religious grounds always believed that an intelligent
cause underlies the universe. The crucial question is whether
there are also scientific grounds for holding this belief.

Intelligent design theorists say Yes, there are valid scientific
grounds for holding that an intelligent cause has been active
in the origin and development of life. Much of the work in this
area is recent, and has been motivated, on the one hand, by the
consistent failure of evolutionary theory to account for the specified
complexity of life, and, on the other, by the tendency of so-called
"scientific creationists" to conflate a literal reading
of Genesis 1 with their scientific work. Recent books on intelligent
design theory have been written by Walter ReMine (an engineer),
Michael Behe (a biochemist), and myself (a mathematician).
In each case we introduce a criterion by which to distinguish
what intelligent causes can do from what natural causes cannot
do.

For instance, Michael Behe introduces the notion of irreducible
complexity to distinguish intelligent causes from natural
causes. As an example of irreducible complexity Behe considers
a mousetrap. According to Behe a mousetrap is irreducibly complex
because it loses functionality as soon as any of its components
are removed: remove the spring, and the trap won't close; remove
the latch, and the trap can't be set; etc. So too, Behe finds
cells comprised of "molecular machines" (like the bacterial
flagellum) which display irreducible complexity. Behe presents
an in-principle argument why evolutionary theory cannot account
for these systems and why they are better explained by appealing
to intelligent causes.

Well, that certainly seems to settle the matter-intelligent design
is properly scientific and ought to be taught within high-school
science curricula. Not so fast say the critics. Even if intelligent
design eventually proves itself to be properly scientific, for
now it is much too new to be tested on high school students in
their biology courses. High school students should not be treated
as guinea pigs for a course of instruction that may in the end
just turn out to be religion masquerading as science. Granted
that Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity has a
certain intuitive appeal, we ought nonetheless to demand that
this criterion be properly vetted by the scientific community
before admitting it into high-school science curricula.

Although this caution appears well-founded, it in fact betrays
a strong metaphysical bias of its own, and one that evinces an
unreasoned commitment to naturalism-the view that nature is all
there is and that proper explanation is always in terms of natural
causes governed by natural laws. As strictly a logical possibility,
naturalism may be the way things are. But naturalism is hardly
a necessary truth, and the debate over its truth is by no means
closed. To demand that Behe's criterion receive the approval the
scientific community before it can be taught in science curricula
is, in the naturalistic ethos that currently dominates science,
to guarantee that Behe's criterion will not be taught in science
curricula. What appears as an innocent caution therefore ends
up being an act of scientific imperialism, guaranteeing that intelligent
design will never make it onto the scientific playing field.

Indeed, who sets the rules of science? The very demand that science
explain in terms of natural rather than intelligent causes is
itself applied selectively. Whole branches of science already
presuppose that features of the natural world can display unequivocal
marks of intelligence causation, thereby clearly signaling the
activity of an intelligent designer (cf. anthropology, archeology,
and forensic science). Nor need the intelligences inferred in
this way necessarily all be human or even earthbound. Consider,
for instance, NASA's SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence) in which certain radio signals from outer space
would with full confidence be interpreted as signaling the presence
of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are reliable criteria
for inferring intelligent causes. Certain special sciences already
admit as much. Why then refuse their admission into biology?

There is a double standard at work here. And as G. K. Chesterton
has so perceptively noted, behind every double standard is a hidden
agenda. The hidden agenda in this case is ensuring the continued
dominance of naturalism within the scientific establishment. For
instance, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
promotes precisely this hidden agenda when it endorses evolutionary
theory to the total exclusion of intelligent design: "The
diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent
with modification that is affected by natural selection, chance,
historical contingencies and changing environments."

Whence the NABT's supreme confidence in evolutionary theory given
the severe problems that continue to trouble it? The origin of
life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular
life, the origin of sexuality, the gaps in the fossil record,
the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the
development of complex organ systems, and the development of irreducibly
complex molecular machines are just a few of the more serious
difficulties that confront every account of the origin and development
of life that posits only purposeless, material processes. These
problems are not going away and, if anything, the prospect of
accounting for them given naturalism is becoming worse with time.
Whence, then, the NABT's dogmatism in excluding intelligent design
from the scientific playing field?

The only reasons for excluding intelligent design from science
are self-serving ones. Philosophers of science who remain fully
committed to evolutionary theory, but know the difference between
a good and a bad argument admit as much. For instance, Elliott
Sober, a philosopher of biology at the University of Wisconsin,
will write, "Before Darwin's time, some of the best and the
brightest in both philosophy and science argued that the adaptedness
of organisms can be explained only by the hypothesis that organisms
are the product of intelligent design. This line of reasoning-the
design argument-is worth considering as an object of real
intellectual beauty. It was not the fantasy of crackpots but the
fruits of creative genius." Nor does Sober exclude intelligent
design from staging a comeback: "Perhaps one day, [intelligent
design] will be formulated in such a way that the auxiliary assumptions
it adopts are independently supported. My claim is that no [intelligent
design theorist] has succeeded in doing this yet." My claim,
on the other hand, is that design theorist are just beginning
to succeed in this respect.

In conclusion, as head of Christian education for a large local
church, the right thing for you to do is to stand your ground
and continue to have intelligent design taught in the biology
classes of your high school. The reason for taking this stand
has nothing to do with a narrow, self-serving fundamentalism according
to which Christianity will prosper only if evolutionary theory
can be discredited. Intelligent design is not the latest Christian
ploy to undermine evolutionary theory and thereby promote Christianity.
The question, rather, is one of truth and fairness: to determine
the scientific merits of evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

This is not to stack the deck and assert that intelligent design
is true. Evolutionary theory may indeed be true. But if so, its
truth ought to be ascertained not by artificially constricting
the playing field on which scientific theories are decided. As
things stand now, the new policy makers in charge of school certification
are ruling intelligent design out of court without a fair hearing.
This attitude cannot help further the cause of truth. Nor does
it make for good pedagogy. The reason, then, for continuing to
teach intelligent design within the biology curriculum of your
Christian high school is to promote the free expression and critical
examination of ideas. And within Christian education this is without
a doubt the best signifier of the gospel.